Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

J. for the Study of the NT, pre-publication online, June 16 by Mark Goodacre

Abstract

Although the term ‘empty tomb’ is endemic in contemporary literature, it is never used in the earliest Christian materials. The term makes little sense in the light of first-century Jerusalem tombs, which always housed multiple people. One absent body would not leave the tomb empty. The gospel narratives presuppose a large, elite tomb, with multiple loculi, and a heavy rolling stone to allow repeated access for multiple burials. The gospels therefore give precise directions about where Jesus’ body lay in this large tomb. Apologetic anxiety leads to the characterization of the tomb as ‘new’ (Matthew and John), ‘in which no one had been laid’ (Luke and John), but it is possible that the appearance of Mark’s young man ‘on the right’ is significant. The anachronistic question ‘Was the tomb empty?’ should be replaced by the accurate question, ‘How empty was the tomb?’

https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X211023714

Goodacre always has sharp observations. Thanks for the pointer Stephen

Oh, never mind. I've checked Mark now, while I still have to read the article. I might shoot myself in the foot, but here goes:


It must be a fairly large tomb, otherwise there is no point in checking out where they put him


I must be overlooking something.
- They arrive at the "tomb" (the literal word is monument, as in 'memory') and observe that the stone is gone - ergo, something is amiss.
- They enter the tomb, and (immediately?) on their right, someone attracts their attention by speaking to them.
- That same person tells them to behold the τόπος (LOL) where they laid him and to go (outside), which they do

So. Bold is repeating what Goodacre states:

• There is no empty tomb (it is never used in the earliest Christian materials)
• It is elite indeed (the gospel narratives presuppose a large, elite tomb, with multiple loculi, and a heavy rolling stone to allow repeated access for multiple burials)
• It is clear enough how to get to where the body was laid (The gospels therefore give precise directions about where Jesus’ body lay in this large tomb)

Is this a simple case of re-educating the public?
Basically, the entire article is already complete this way

The anachronistic question ‘Was the tomb empty?’ should be replaced by the accurate question, ‘How empty was the tomb?’

That's a cliff hanger into the article, I suppose?
We all have our chores, and a professor must publish, I presume. Well, it can't always be exciting

Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Galba":

"[Galba's head was] bought by a freedman of Patrobius Neronianus for a hundred pieces of gold and thrown aside in the place where his patron had been executed by Galba's order. At last, however, his steward Argivus consigned it to the tomb with the rest of the body in Galba's private gardens on the Aurelian Road..."

John 20: 6 - 7 (RSV):

[6] Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying,
[7] and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself.

"...the napkin", or, "head bandage" is "Soudarion", a Latin Loan-Word (Atwill).
Yes, I am asserting that this is the correct correspondence.

CW

Charles Wilson wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 4:43 am Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Galba":

"[Galba's head was] bought by a freedman of Patrobius Neronianus for a hundred pieces of gold and thrown aside in the place where his patron had been executed by Galba's order. At last, however, his steward Argivus consigned it to the tomb with the rest of the body in Galba's private gardens on the Aurelian Road..."

John 20: 6 - 7 (RSV):

[6] Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying,
[7] and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself.

"...the napkin", or, "head bandage" is "Soudarion", a Latin Loan-Word (Atwill).
Yes, I am asserting that this is the correct correspondence.

CW

Indeed it is: σουδάριον - Lat. suda_rium, a kerchief, NTesp

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... uda%2Frion

Peter Head has a fine paper on (loan)words in Mark.
But you have to check his bio first and LOL at the first line

Peter was born at a young age in Melbourne, Australia

It's a miracle!!!

https://www.academia.edu/47774251/Marks ... d_Material

Get the Berean Interlinear please Charles, it will give you access to the Greek and a proper translation, all in one.
It's free

https://berean.bible/downloads.htm

John 20:6 Ἔρχεται (Comes) οὖν (then) καὶ (also) Σίμων (Simon) Πέτρος (Peter) ἀκολουθῶν (following) αὐτῷ (him), καὶ (and) εἰσῆλθεν (he entered) εἰς (into) τὸ (the) μνημεῖον (tomb) καὶ (and) θεωρεῖ (sees) τὰ (the) ὀθόνια (linen cloths) κείμενα (lying there),
7 καὶ (and) τὸ (the) σουδάριον (soudarion), ὃ (which) ἦν (was) ἐπὶ (upon) τῆς (the) κεφαλῆς (head) αὐτοῦ (of Him), οὐ (not) μετὰ (with) τῶν (the) ὀθονίων (linen cloths) κείμενον (lying), ἀλλὰ (but) χωρὶς (by itself) ἐντετυλιγμένον (having been folded up) εἰς (in) ἕνα (a) τόπον (place).

The word that needs our attention naturally is χωρὶς

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 3Dxwri%2Fs

"Separately". And again we have that word, τόπος...

And in the light of all these particularly interesting Greek words, as well as Latin loanwords, it becomes even more hilarious that the hardliners keep pushing their Hebrew / Aramaic angle:

In spite of its anti-Jewish polemic, the author of John's Gospel often demonstrates a better knowledge of first-century Jewish culture than do any of the synoptic gospels. On this point, Dagmar Winter ('The Burden of Proof in Jesus Research', published in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, Volume 1, edited by Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter - page 967) says:

Scholars are becoming increasingly aware that John's Gospel is as equally Jewish, if not more Jewish than the synoptics. Jewish scholars cite John as evidence of aspects of Jewish life and practice in the first century.

The author of John was aware that Jews did not wrap the main cloth around the head of a deceased person in case the person was not really dead. Instead, they covered the deceased's head with a small cloth, or napkin (σουδαρίῳ) so that the person might blow the cloth away and alert the grievers who might still be present. The author mentions this napkin twice (at John 11:44 and at 20:7). Luke 19:20 also uses the same word, but merely for a small cloth unrelated to burial.

As the author of John was so familiar with Jewish practices, it may be that we can see a hint of his identity, which is that that he was very possibly a Christianised Jew.

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ ... rth-gospel

It's a questionable site of course, but a great place to go for rubbish. There's tons of that.
Needless to say, they don't go into details, because they don't fancy the idea of debunking their own fantasies


See? Even Berean suddenly turns this cloth of Luke into a headcloth - and / or vice versa

The next of the 4 occurrences is John 20:6, and then comes


And that is exactly that, it's just a hanky. Such an ordinary, common and uneventful object that it's a typical least likely candidate for a loanword

How empty was the tomb? Well, the emphasis on its emptiness seems to increase over time.

The Tomb in Matthew, Mark, and Luke:
The Tomb in Matthew, Luke, and John:
Tables from Mark Goodacre, "How Empty Was the Tomb?", JSNT, 2021.

Best,

Ken

I know from Turmel that in the original proto-John, the structure of the tomb was not horizontal, but vertical, as a well.

As evidence in such sense, there would be something related to the way Peter and the beloved disciple come running to the tomb. If someone is interested, I can quote better Turmel in such sense.

ETA: the corollary is that the tomb was empty, obviously.

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 5:44 am How empty was the tomb? Well, the emphasis on its emptiness seems to increase over time.

The Tomb in Matthew, Mark, and Luke:

The Tomb in Matthew-Mark-Luke.png

The Tomb in Matthew, Luke, and John:

The Tomb in Matthew-Luke-John 1.png

The Tomb in Matthew-Luke-John 2.png

Tables from Mark Goodacre, "How Empty Was the Tomb?", JSNT, 2021.

Best,

Ken

You could have saved yourself the trouble of drawing premature conclusions Ken, if only you had read Mark's introductory, or the OP:

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 3:01 am J. for the Study of the NT, pre-publication online, June 16 by Mark Goodacre

Abstract

Although the term ‘empty tomb’ is endemic in contemporary literature, it is never used in the earliest Christian materials. The term makes little sense in the light of first-century Jerusalem tombs, which always housed multiple people. One absent body would not leave the tomb empty. The gospel narratives presuppose a large, elite tomb, with multiple loculi, and a heavy rolling stone to allow repeated access for multiple burials. The gospels therefore give precise directions about where Jesus’ body lay in this large tomb. Apologetic anxiety leads to the characterization of the tomb as ‘new’ (Matthew and John), ‘in which no one had been laid’ (Luke and John), but it is possible that the appearance of Mark’s young man ‘on the right’ is significant. The anachronistic question ‘Was the tomb empty?’ should be replaced by the accurate question, ‘How empty was the tomb?’

https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X211023714

Apologetic anxiety - like I said,

mlinssen wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 4:10 am Goodacre always has sharp observations

mlinssen,
I looks as if Ken has read the whole article, so no apparent need to presume otherwise.

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 3:01 am J. for the Study of the NT, pre-publication online, June 16 by Mark Goodacre

Abstract

Although the term ‘empty tomb’ is endemic in contemporary literature, it is never used in the earliest Christian materials. The term makes little sense in the light of first-century Jerusalem tombs, which always housed multiple people. One absent body would not leave the tomb empty. The gospel narratives presuppose a large, elite tomb, with multiple loculi, and a heavy rolling stone to allow repeated access for multiple burials. The gospels therefore give precise directions about where Jesus’ body lay in this large tomb. Apologetic anxiety leads to the characterization of the tomb as ‘new’ (Matthew and John), ‘in which no one had been laid’ (Luke and John), but it is possible that the appearance of Mark’s young man ‘on the right’ is significant. The anachronistic question ‘Was the tomb empty?’ should be replaced by the accurate question, ‘How empty was the tomb?’

https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X211023714

Goodacre suggests as a possibility that Mark's 'on the right' is significant, with reference to Murphy O'Connor (who attributes it to Markan redaction) and Joel Marcus (who identifies the right with power, victory and auspiciousness), but most importantly to Rachel Hachlili:

Rachel Hachlili claims that ‘After the chamber and the standing pit were hewn, the loculi were cut in a counterclockwise direction, from right to left’ (Hachlili 2005: 56).38 She suggests also that ‘The process of burial and reburial was evidently also followed from right to left’ (Hachlili 2005: 56).

This might suggest that Mark meant to imply that Jesus was the first person to be buried in the tomb because he was to the right (i.e., the first person buried in the tomb would be on the right, later loculi being utilized going counterclockwise around the tomb).

I'm not convinced that this possibility is likely for two reasons. First (and less importantly) the body would presumably have been placed on a shelf so that it could be prepared for burial, placed in a small sarcophagus or burial shelf which would then have been sealed at the top or front to allow the body to decompose. Then, after some time (usually a year) the seal would be broken and the bones removed and placed in an ossuary, which was then placed in a loculus within the tomb. Jesus' placement on a place in view on the right suggests that that was just a temporary placement of the body which needed further preparation (i.e., it was a place to put bodies temporarily, not a permanent resting place).

Second (and more importantly), the theory assumes that the evangelist specified the right for this particular reason, which is probably unnecessary. In the canonical gospels, the left is only specified when it's paired with the right (e.g., Matt 6.3, 25.33, Mark 10.37, 15.27, Luke 23.33). Every time one direction is specified, it's always the right. (If anyone is aware of any exceptions, I'd be glad to know them; I'm not counting Acts 21.3 because it's not in in a gospel).

Best,

Ken